Wrong question. The right question, of course, is which of those claims is mine; and the answer, of course, is (a). The obvious followup is why the hell you attributed to me an additional claim I never made; and the answer, of course, is so you could pretend I contradicted myself. You're welcome.
You stated, in addition to your assertion I am dodging your question, that I must "develop the capacity to recognize an intelligent point" (in post 746) . Two assertions! I interpreted the 2nd as an assertion "I am not intelligent enough to understand the question..." But in any case, before we can proceed, you must reply to my post 750, obviously: fmw and spooky are free to disappear, but you are not really entitled to do so, at this point. So don't forget: Perhaps you might assist 'fmw' who wasn't able to describe/define "respect for life" (in his post 730).... or even 'Spooky' who wasn't able to discuss the problems inherent in identifying Jesus with Jehovah (in post 727)….. difficulty possibly based on cognititive dissonance which I explained in post #745.
Yes these debates can descend into (unintended) hilarity. But at least the original confusion re your 'copulation' thesis has now been cleared up (obviously, since you have continued to ignore - or rather not acknowledge - my explanatory post #750, and have now chosen to withdraw from debating the substantive issues).
In your case, I doubt it. On the contrary, I'm plenty open to that, with anyone who is up to it - which you clearly are not.
Why the doubt (re your copulation thesis)? The matter is either addressed in #750, or it Isn't. We shall see...when the general debate (faith v. science) resumes among those who have the fortitude to resume it.
My pardon for jumping in but it is interesting that you claim to have a degree. Perhaps things have changed but regardless of what program one was in you had English 100. You seem to not understand the difference between the word human - when used as a descriptive adjective - (human life, human cell, human feces) and the noun usage (a living human, a human) The abortion debate - whether one is speaking with respect to Science, Philosophy, Legal or Political - is about whether or not the entity is - A Human - (Noun) not whether or not it is human (descriptive adjective). What is pathetic is that you have been debating this issue long enough to know this ... so whats up with your nonsense argument - one that you know is abject nonsense.
Fine. I view a a fetus as A HUMAN. Feel free to insert whichever words appeal to me. I don't particularly enjoy semantic arguments.
I enjoyed reading this post in particular. From what I have read of the entire thread from the beginning so far, there are sometimes difficulties arising from definition of terms, and sometimes problems arising from unwarranted certitude, but as you point out "we do not have enough information" for certitude other than scientific certitude (eg E= mc.c)….but no doubt some philosophers will enjoy refuting even that that certitude. ( I tend to lump such 'philosophy into the "arguing how many angels can stand on a pin-head category). And of course the topic of religious certitude has arisen along the way: inter alia due some people apparently accepting scripture as the actual word of God, rather than, as is more likely, as a record of Man's search for God. Someone said science is the realm of the natural, and faith the realm of the supernatural (a rather neat formulation), and some-else said the two realms should be kept apart, yet obviously the two realms are very much combined in this experience recalled by Wordsworth (a lover of 'nature'): "I wondered lonely as a cloud....and the sounding cataracts haunted me like a passion". The passion in the poet's words, describing his experience of the natural world, are enough to convince me of the existence of God! But just to remind us of the existential drama/confusion of human existence: usfan - iirc, I remember you for your Right Wing, flag waving zealotry; (my choice of words not intended to offend but only to make the point re said drama...); how can such a closed political stance be so much at odds with your open philosophical stance - relayed in your post quoted above? IOW, can you convert me to being a "US fan"?
Ah, you are back...neither do I. A fetus is a potential human at least...and therefore abortion ought be avoided if possible ( I hope the women reading these debates don't mind men pontificating on this topic) I see societal recognition of a relationship between a (perceived) desire for an abortion (by a particular woman) and her economic circumstances as a way to progress the debate beyond political boundaries, to a wider agreement on the matter.
Its not semantics - learn what semantics is - and don't blame me for your use of incorrect terminology that you know is incorrect. You also know the term "Fetus" is technically flawed as you do not specify at what point. Early term - late term - what on earth do you mean. If you want to claim the zygote is a human - then claim this. Finally - that you view the Fetus as a human is fine - anyone can have an opinion - but is it informed. The question is whether or not you can back up that claim - or is it just "faith".
Naked claims are not worth much. Just because some claim that earth is flat - does not make those claims true.
From the site quoted: WHAT IS THE CROSS EXAMINED STATEMENT OF FAITH? CrossExamined.org is an evangelical, inter-denominational Christian ministry. We seek to present evidence that the Bible is true. Not to be taken seriously, then.
The obvious rational for the resurrection story is that it was a fake, like so much of religion. His friends bribed the guards to take him down, they patched him up and paraded him around. He was never dead in the first place. Just look at all the other fake stuff around, the pieces of the true cross, relics of the saints, bleeding statues, the shroud of Turin, miracles which never happened, just designed to impress the weak-minded.
I have never said anything of the sort. Not sure who you were getting that gibberish from but it was not from me - and nor have I made any naked claims - like you have done. You are the one going around saying that the zygote is defacto - a living human - but you give no rational for why this claim is true.
This includes references that sound a little like some things I've said, so I'm choosing to jump in to clarify. I do not suggest that the supernatural and natural need to be separated. If there is a supernatural, there certainly is no reason to believe that it would have to be separate in some way. It could be infused around us like dark matter or it could be in a separate "dimension" or maybe it IS separate in some other way, but how could we tell? I'm more saying that we need to keep our tools separate. Our scientific tools don't work on the supernatural at all. And, our religious tools don't help us understand how our physical world works. So, we should select the right tools for the question at hand. And, we absolutely should keep the tools separate, as they are based on entirely different assumptions - making mixing them sure to give us absolute garbage.
Agreed. The experience of the divine ("God") can be subjective reality in this natural world; it's beyond the remit of science to "prove" otherwise. As it's beyond faith's remit to "prove" the objective reality of eg, the Resurrection. (I presume this is a correct description of the 'faith/science' dichotomy, in agreement with your positing different tools to deal with these different spheres of experience).
That you have no desire for your beliefs to be founded in logic and reason is your choice and are welcome to that choice. This is not my choice though. I base my beliefs on logic and reason.
You obviously don't know what socialism is, so how can you possibly discuss science? “A Darwinian state would be a Fascist state.” – Richard Dawkins, in 2005 – Section 4094 - Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn
